{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp07_retrospective_selector60_20260803","cell_code":"E7C045","selector_replication":2,"assessments":[{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_A","problem_reality_importance":82,"causal_archetype_fit":93,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":61,"operational_specificity":95,"falsifiability_test_quality":96,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":86,"authority_safety_reversibility":97,"strict_potential":87,"empirical_partner_potential":93,"scrutiny_priority":90,"biggest_visible_risk":"A formal population statement, abstract-adjacency discipline, and preservation of sampled edge sets may solve most of the problem without a new sampler component or extensive conformance portfolio.","rationale":"The proposal identifies a concrete semantic failure: labeled-uniform and isomorphism-class-uniform samplers can share a graph-valued signature while changing the experiment's measure. The exact small-n oracle, independently implemented samplers, biased mutant, frozen event list, and reversible pilot make the decisive claim unusually testable. Its main scrutiny question is whether the component architecture adds causal value beyond a simpler experiment protocol."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_B","problem_reality_importance":68,"causal_archetype_fit":88,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":24,"operational_specificity":84,"falsifiability_test_quality":85,"adopter_partner_path":72,"deployability_complexity":63,"authority_safety_reversibility":94,"strict_potential":47,"empirical_partner_potential":76,"scrutiny_priority":61,"biggest_visible_risk":"The universal-property package may merely encode the most direct mathematical characterization of completion, while completeness and a dense isometric embedding may already suffice to derive the proposed extension behavior.","rationale":"The dependency audit and frozen theorem corpus could reveal genuine construction leakage, and an authorized isolated formalization partner could resolve that uncertainty. However, the central interface is highly vulnerable to being judged canonical or redundant, and packaging a chosen extension operator may over-specify data derivable from simpler premises. Proof-assistant assumptions and definitional-equality dependencies also make deployment less bounded than the strongest candidates."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_C","problem_reality_importance":74,"causal_archetype_fit":92,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":31,"operational_specificity":91,"falsifiability_test_quality":90,"adopter_partner_path":86,"deployability_complexity":75,"authority_safety_reversibility":96,"strict_potential":59,"empirical_partner_potential":87,"scrutiny_priority":73,"biggest_visible_risk":"A coefficient-function abstraction with opacity and algebraic conformance is a very standard-looking response to representation leakage, so scrutiny may leave little meaningful contrast beyond ordinary module discipline.","rationale":"The proposal has a credible problem, a precise abstraction function, bounded theorem corpus, independent sparse implementation, and tests capable of exposing normalization and edge-case disagreements. A library partner could decisively determine whether current proofs really depend on representation and whether the proposed surface is sufficient. Its strict opportunity is weakened by prior-art vulnerability and the possibility that an existing coefficient-oriented interface already provides the needed boundary."},{"blind_id":"CANDIDATE_D","problem_reality_importance":93,"causal_archetype_fit":96,"distinctiveness_prior_art_resilience":55,"operational_specificity":97,"falsifiability_test_quality":98,"adopter_partner_path":95,"deployability_complexity":82,"authority_safety_reversibility":98,"strict_potential":90,"empirical_partner_potential":97,"scrutiny_priority":96,"biggest_visible_risk":"The state-machine contract may restate an existing exact-checker boundary or freeze one branch-and-bound proof strategy, leaving storage independence but little broader contrastive contribution.","rationale":"This is the most consequential and partner-ready proposal: lost domain coverage or unchecked bounds can invalidate a computer-assisted proof, and the archetype directly separates mathematical obligations from generator traces. Exact arithmetic, explicit verdict categories, seeded corruptions, independent parsers, metamorphic reorderings, and a non-publication-gating rollback make the pilot both safe and decision-changing. Scrutiny should first test whether the claimed missing boundary is real and whether the transition algebra generalizes beyond the incumbent strategy."}],"rank_order":["CANDIDATE_D","CANDIDATE_A","CANDIDATE_C","CANDIDATE_B"],"top_choice":"CANDIDATE_D","portfolio_observation":"All four proposals use an opaque semantic contract to decouple mathematical meaning from representation, so their main differentiator is not archetype fit but whether the contract addresses a consequential failure and preserves a non-routine contrast. D and A pair exact finite or rational oracles with concrete semantic hazards and strong reversible pilots. C and especially B remain valuable partner studies, but their proposed abstractions are more vulnerable to collapsing into conventional mathematical interface design or already-sufficient simpler premises.","confidence":"HIGH"}